Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The EFF Reports that a woman from Oklahoma got a big win today in the RIAA's case against her in 2004. FTA:

"The decision today is one of the first in the country to award attorneys fees to a defendant in an RIAA case over music sharing on the Internet."
"In his ruling, Judge West found that the RIAA had asserted an untested and marginal theory that veered toward "frivolous and unreasonable" by suing Foster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement when the only evidence against her was her name on the household Internet account. Much like the judge in Elektra v. Santangelo, West expressed skepticism that "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from a kazoo" could be held liable for children in her home downloading music illegally unless the parent had knowledge of the conduct or had giver her permission to do so."

This case was thrown out in July, but Foster's lawyer fees were finally awarded formally to her. Could this be a godo precedent for future cases that (1) IP Address != Infringing Person, and (2) RIAA getting slammed for attorney's fees in the future?

"Terrorism" strikes again. A man advertising Adult Swim in Boston has just been arrested. FTA:
"Authorities arrested a man in connection with electronic light boards depicting a middle-finger-waving moon man that triggered repeated bomb scares around Boston on Wednesday and prompted the closure of bridges and a stretch of the Charles River."

"Rep. Ed Markey, a Boston-area congressman, said, "Whoever thought this up needs to find another job."
How about the genius that decided to shut down the whole T system has to find another job?

Warren Buffett made public his disgust with the Bush Administration's dividend tax relief plan in an Op-Ed piece titled "Dividend Voodoo". His heart bleeds with guilt over his own success in life; he feels so much for the poor, that he is blinded to the real economic benefits of a tax cut for everyone. Furthermore, his argument fails to address the inequities of the current tax system that this cut attempts to rectify.

Buffett claims that repealing the dividend tax "tips the balance" of taxation in favor of the rich. Perhaps by this he meant that the tax break would benefit those who invest, but his assumption that those Americans who invest their savings are rich is in fact fallacious; many investors in this country are working-class. Furthermore, a repeal of dividend taxes might even encourage your average American to put his savings into the market; and not into the high-risk stocks that Mr. Buffett eschews, they would be more likely to invest in stable companies that will perform consistently - the type of company that he prefers. Why does he believe that an average American cannot use this tax cut to gain the same advantages as the super-rich?

Mr. Buffett goes on to claim that corporate profits would be invested whether or not they are paid out as tax-free dividends. He uses Berkshire Hathaway as his primary example of this, claiming that although rich beneficiaries like himself would undoubtedly invest most of their newfound income so would the businesses paying those dividends. This is of course true, however, most companies are not like Berkshire Hathaway - they don't invest in a wide variety of other businesses as a primary function. When this money is paid out as a dividend it will be re-invested in ways that most companies wouldn't. A shareholder in Disney, might use his dividend payment to purchase shares of General Electric, or invest in a new startup, or perhaps even buy bonds or commodities, meanwhile Disney is likely to spend that money on executive salaries, developing its own businesses, or perhaps to build a cash reserve. This allows that capital to "move" in the marketplace, with a greater degree of freedom than it might have elsewhere; besides, the money belongs to the shareholders - if they think that it is best left invested in the company, then they will vote not to pay a dividend.

"Dividend Voodoo" proposes a Social Security tax "holiday" to provide a more equitable distribution of tax relief to needy Americans. Surely someone with a Masters degree in economics would know better than to propose such a thing. Social Security is like a leaky bucket, in order to keep the bucket full, you have to keep adding water - by instituting a "holiday" from this tax, he would drain the bucket, perhaps to the point where it can no longer be refilled.

It was suggested that to give $1,000 dollars to 310,000 needy Americans would provide more growth than providing him with $310 million in tax-free dividend payments; this is what I like to refer to as "give-a-man-a-fish" economics, it sounds like a good plan, but as the saying goes, "give a man a fish and he won't starve for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he won't starve for his entire life." What this country needs is a "teach-a-man-to-fish" economy - that means we need to create jobs. If Mr. Buffett thinks that giving $1,000 to 310,000 families will create jobs, then perhaps he would like to put his money where his mouth is and partake in that charitable pursuit.

This tax cut will most importantly correct an awful double-taxation; the government already taxes the income of out nation's businesses. Under the current laws, that same income would be taxed yet again once it is distributed to a company's shareholders. Perhaps Mr. Buffett's would like to check his math - his tax rate could not possibly be as low as three percent after the dividend tax cut, as he claimed, because that money had already been taxed as corporate income, the rate of the corporate income tax should have been calculated into his final figure.

Warren Buffett's opposition of the President's dividend tax-repeal is shortsighted and was written in a way that is designed to bamboozle the reader into believing that the tax increase will not benefit anyone other than Mr. Buffett and his Forbes 400 colleagues. This however is not the case; the tax repeal makes Federal tax laws fairer, and will surely benefit everyone. Then again, I'm sure he can afford the handkerchief to wipe the egg off of his face when President Bush proves him wrong.

So I don?t really see what everyone is complaining about with this war. I hear the comparisons of the US to a schoolyard bully who beats little kids up and takes their lunch money; except, instead of lunch money we are taking oil. It seems to make sense, except that when we win this war, we won?t get any free oil, we?re still going to have to pay for it. Hopefully we won?t pay nearly as much though. That?s why I see this war as a form of haggling ? except with guns.

What happened to haggling anyway? I mean there?s your free-market economy right there. Have you ever walked into a store, perhaps a Walmart and tried to haggle over the price of some item? More than likely you will get to meet the friendly store security guards as they kick your ass right out of the store. Where can you really haggle any more? Flea Markets? Ebay? Great, so I can haggle over someone else?s used, useless crap, but over objects that are definitely overpriced, we get an absolute price? great. Even car sales are moving away from haggling; then again, when was the last time anyone ever out-haggled a car salesman

and it you thought that was awful, wait until you see the crap I post tomorrow...